Sunday, April 20, 2008

American guns - what are they good for?

Here in Australia very few people have guns. People in the country who have problems with feral pigs, rabbits and foxes etc can register and possess long arms. Otherwise hand-guns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are mythical things we see only in movies. And on the hips of cops, sure.

I understand the appeal of guns. I learned guns under my father, a thirty year military man. I've fired all sorts of long arms from pop-gun 22's through to a genuine Rhodesian elephant rifle. It weighed a ton and kicked like a motherfucker. That insane elephant rifle aside, guns are cool.

In spite of this, I have to be honest and say I like living in a country where the probability of being shot with a handgun is as close to zero as is statistically possible. The fear I sense in the US is absent here. The only fear here is of the standard sock-in-jaw variety from drunks in bars. I say all this so you might understand this foreigner who wishes to discuss American guns.

I've followed the American arguments concerning guns and gun control. The arguments from the pro-gun lobby seemed to me to run primarily on the twin strands of rights as granted in the second amendment and the fear of crime. These are American arguments. Here in Australia neither make any sense. But we're not discussing Australia.

Even in the American context I wondered at these twin points. They seemed at odds with each other. The second amendment is about something, but it ain't crime. Here is the second amendment - 'Amendment [II] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. Is it just me or does this seem to be about the security of a free state by way of a well-regulated militia?

I understood a pro-gun argument based on fear of crime. How far would the gun lobby have gotten with an argument based on the security of a free state? When have Americans not been secure and free? One could argue that under the Fed they never were, but at least until recently the facade was in place. An argument pivoting on crime was the only one that made sense.

But that was then, this is now. Citizens of the United States of America - here's the question - how do you now feel about the security of your 'free' state? The very Bill of Rights we're discussing is just a goddamn piece of paper apparently. Who threatens the security of the free state? It ain't Muslims. The second amendment doesn't say who the guns were to be used against, but the framers of the constitution had just fought a war against their tyrannical rulers. Might this have contributed to them so clearly stating the value of a well regulated militia?

All of those bearers of arms, schooled in the modern mindset of 'home defence', a tyrannical government does not fear you. Singletons waiting at home to defend their property will be comfortably picked off one by one. Tyrannical rulers will only fear you if you are in a well regulated militia. If you sit at home with a gun in your hand, you're doomed.

Says this writer, (and I merely echo your own founding fathers), for your guns to be of any value you will need to form militias. You must abandon defence. You will never win a stand-up fight against the government's greater force, Blackwater included. If your home being violated is the price, so be it. Don't let the tyrants choose the battleground. Seize the initiative. Attack will be your only option - hit and run. You will need structure and you will need strategies. Military training will be of value but only by way of tactics. Current US military strategy will be a weakness - a weakness of the government. The golden rule of the militias must be - hit 'em where they ain't. It will be guerilla warfare or nothing.

And if you're wondering who to hit, may I make a humble suggestion? The first and most important target is the media. If you leave them alone they will ensure you have no support from the populace. Ho Chi Minh was right - without the people's support you will never succeed. Blow up the towers, cut the cables, win the support of your community. Your government must fear you. And you must not fear them.

----------

-A side-note to nutbar racists. Your founding fathers weren't fighting coloured people. Their enemies were other white men. The new tyranny will likewise be white men. Know that even in the absence of racial disharmony the government via the media will attempt to cause it. White people will be provoked, as will everyone else. You can bank on it. Don't be as stupid as the government thinks you are. Strive to find harmony with those who, like you, suffer under tyranny. Racial division will be the death of freedom and must not be tolerated.

29 comments:

John
said...

Hi Nobody and everyone, first off i'd like to say that I don't like violence; i'm a quite a big geezer and learnt how to control my temper a long time ago so I just try to keep out of trouble if I can as violence seems to cause more violence. America does seem a strange place with all those guns but it's just poor people killing other poor people while their choice of targets for political assassination have always seemed curious. The clumsy and giant nature of the american military is its most obvious weakness, my suggested reading is "The War of the Flea" by Robert Taber. I hope that one day there will be a more peaceful world, without weapons and fear. Cheers for now, john.

I ain't into violence either. I've had two fights in my whole life. Once in high-school with a bully and once where I was OS and beat up a guy who was beating up his girlfriend. And that last thing sounds simple but was way weird. The girl spent the whole time apologising for all the fuss. What did it all mean? Hell if I know.

And all that shooting I did, I never shot a critter, just targets. Those old-hand military guys I did it with didn't groove on killing critters. What does that mean? Dunno. I know they didn't groove on war. They said so.

And the curious choice of assassination targets? Ain't nothing curious about it mate. You do frequent wrh I take it? You might want to bone up on JFK, RFK and MLK for starters. And don't stop there neither.

And, estienne, I did say I was a foreigner. I knew I'd trip up somewhere in that piece on something like this. The American lexicon on subjects such as this are pretty specific to America. Sorry, this is completely frivolous, but it reminds me of Americans I've encountered overseas who had great difficulty grappling with the concept of not tipping people. Whereas truth is, it's absurdly simple. Tipping on the other hand does my head in. In a similar fashion, in spite of having been to America several times, having American friends, and being awash in exported American culture I still fail to grasp the technicalities of certain words and meanings.

Otherwise, I expect you're right and I stand corrected. I don't know that it means they won't take your rights away though...

Why all the confusion? It says we have a right to two things: a wellregulated militia and the right to bear arms. Most of the shootings happen in "gun free zones". here we have three things to fear:government, criminalsand cops. A gun is for hunting and protection or sport. I wouldn't use one for anything else.

Nobody,Is'nt K.L Malaysia just one of the coolest places I really dont know their politics that well but even that too seems to work for them.I have been to a lot of places K.L does it for me.Ever heard of John Phelps-Vatican assassins? A must read he talks about it all in a paper three years old white on black police on people a weakened military I will try to get you the exact details meanwhile you might want to check out www.remnantofgod.org/blckpope.htm I suggest you do otherwise mate right on the money you are.C.J.

And why is an Austrailian so concerned about the freedom of people on the opposite side of the globe? So concerned that he's offering strategy tips on fighting our government? (good tips, by the way) It's because when America loses it's freedom, everyone loses their freedom. And before anyone else tries to interpret the second amendment they need to reemember that the term "well-regulated" had a very different meaning in the 18th century than it does today. It did not mean the militia was subject to government regulations, but that it was "functioning as expected," and when applied to a militia, it meant they were armed, and ready to toss away their government like yesterday's newspaper should they dare to expose a hint of tyranny. Smash your TV, and form local groups of any nature -- not just militias. Gardening clubs, hunting clubs, and increase community involvement wherever possible. But whether you're a hunting club trading buckskins, or a gardening club trading rose hybrids, everyone should have a good rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo. If you're buying a new rifle get something in a.223rem calibur (5.56mm) or a .308win (7.62mm) because these are the bullets thatr will be available after gun stores are closed.

It's just you. The version of the 2nd amendment you posted is an a grammatically incorrect version.

According to the Library of Congress, and the Government Printing Office, the final wording was; 'Amendment [II] A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed'. The use of one coma, instead of three changes the interpretation drastically. If you look at quotes from the founding fathers it's also extremely obvious they did not mean for people to bear arms only as part of a militia. It was for personal defense, plain and simple. At a time in history when guns put food on the table, and protected the people from those who would mean to steal their livelihood, the loss of guns would have doomed the people. The same as it will do today.

Your government is free to do whatever they want to or with the people, and you don't have the means to resist them, and that's the whole point. I fear what happened there may happen here. Our government is out of control enough, we don't need to lose the only thing they fear. Gun control doesn't control crime, it controls who can get guns.

Making guns illegal makes it so only criminals will have guns, I'd be more afraid if that were the case, not less. That just means as a law abiding citizen I've been denied the right to self defense. Criminals, who have no respect for the law anyways, are free to carry out their crimes opposed only by the police. To which end I say this: According to the US Dept. of Justice in 2005 71% of all 911 calls for violent crimes, police response time exceeded 6 minutes. 28% 6 to 10 minutes, 34% of that total 11 minutes to 1 hour, 3% within 24 hrs, 2% of the total exceeded 24 hours and its slowing down.

You can trust the Government that endangered you in the first place for your self defense, or you can trust yourself. If you live in a rural area, good luck. That's why I carry a gun.

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

"No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people." William Rawle

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption for authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster

My attempts at irony don't travel well across the internet, i'm a crap comedian.By curious I meant curious that it appears only the good guys get shot. As much as I don't like violence I think that maybe sometimes it is the only response available, who knows? I don't.

...some are born into endless night.you cant stop the clouds by building a ship.some people just don't get it, stupid fuckin white men.I HAVE learned to speak with my gun, and my poetry, from now on will be written with blood.

As far as I am concerned everyone in america should purchase all the guns and ammo that they can. Just in case the jew world order un/israeli "one world goverment" terrorists ever come knocking on their doors. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and resist tyranny.

Hmm... seems I failed here. My point, such as it was, was that if you wait for the government to come knocking at your door, your guns won't save you. Did guns save anyone at Waco or Ruby Ridge?

Yes they'll save you from criminals. But they won't save you from a criminal government. And I'm hardly extolling the banning of guns. I'm merely saying that previously, guns in America and the arguments about them made no sense to me. But they make sense to me now. The part of the second amendment concerning well-regulated militias I now see in a whole new light courtesy of this Bush puppet government.

Here's a thought - If, in the American revolution, each of the minutemen had sat at home waiting to defend it against King George's men (and other criminals, sure) do you think the revolution would have succeeded?

I notice that libertyforum pasted this piece with a link. I find it telling that they pasted it without the anti-racism paragraph at the end. Why would they do that? The obvious thought is that they're of those who would sow racial disharmony. Hey libertyforum, are you a pack of racists?

And I'd also like to greet the dhs who've seen fit to check me out (amongst other various .govs). To those people I ask - Do you have any idea who you're working for? If you do you're a jackal. And if you merely think you do, you're a dupe. Either way your life is a delusion.

I expect that at some point in the future I shall be sitting in a windowless room, under duress, talking to anonymous men. My advice is that they send their very best or their most retarded. Even with these I'll have a pretty good shot at screwing with their heads. I'm only one man but if I can make a single of your servants question his masters, it'll have been worthwhile.

(b) and u're against "racism" which is mere synonym for loyalty, which racism is no less than 5th of original Ten Commandments ("Honor thy race [Parentage]"),

Then (c) it would seem u're nothing but a Jew--isn't that a fact, or at least a reasonable conclusion?

For isn't racism (loyalty) AXIOMATIC?--a matter of either-or?--u must needs be loyal, hence racist, in favor of one or the other, mixed or non-mixed, eh?

CONCLUSION: Hence only a Jew or a queer (or both) could possibly seriously advocate with the brilliant logic as u do--isn't this fairly obvious fact? Thanks for ur consideration and commentary. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

I really wonder at the people commenting here who seem to think I'm against guns. Did they not read the article?

But it is true I'm against racism. To be for racism you have to apply the abysmal logic that apollonian has put down here - a bullshit synonym for loyalty; ;a quote from an apocryphal book belonging to a Jewish sect (which frankly is what Christianity is); and a specious bit of non-logic that I expect none but apollonian understands.

Mate, not only are you mad and a racist, but you can't write for shit. Feel free to send in whatever mad thoughts are screaming through your head but they'll never grace these pages again.

maybe it is our long breeding as sheep, that we wait til the wolf is in the fence. i dunno. maybe the child in us can't give up the delusion that it all won't come to blood in the streets.... and lastly as jefferson sternly intoned... if we tear it down.. we damn well better have something ready to take its place. maybe that's the rub.....?

culturally speakin.......scots have an affinity for not having their arms taken by anyone for any reason.. goes back to a much earlier time... we did.. and ended up throwin rocks.... at least my branch of scots learned then.. ya don't give em up ever. too easy a target for anybody.... especially snooty britz and yankees.

i remb when oz gave up its arms. i don't remb the year.. but wasn't the impetus the port arthur massacre which closely followed another in scotland? i despise wikki but... p.a was in 96. ok, so.. the nutter had come in to contact w/the psych community... this is a red flag for me.... possible manchurian/MK Ultra candidate... or simply exponentially wigged out on meds.. or both.....

as a common element, here in the us... most if not all mass shooters... have either had intimate contact w/the mil and or the psych community and been "treated". only example w/no overtly known gov/mil contact... charlie boy.... and who knows the real story there? i don't remb if charlie's family had been loud enuff to have captured the attention of the FBI or any other loving acronym of the PTB. it is quite a leap from spurned musician to mass murderer... or maybe it isn't...? in either case.. ultimately, the question remains...qui bono?when the populace is unarmed.... qui bono?

so anyway.. your american arguments... "granted" rights and crime.if our society functioned as it should .. i hate to use that word..the judiciary/penal system would almost negate the crime element and the self defense issue against rogue mad maxx crime would be moot.... but it doesn't.....

so what's left? a "granted" right? newp... i don't consider gun ownership a grant from any temporal authority, even the framers.its a natural right. up and until the social contract is violated on either side, then all bets are off.

so if the rogue mad maxx element is essentially null, what threats are left? wild animals and the gov.

so quite aptly your response "Tyrannical rulers will only fear you if you are in a well regulated militia. If you sit at home with a gun in your hand, you're doomed."

so... well regulated to me, sez... easily identified, and usually visually in a knot...tactically unsound. ya know.. old school.. eye to eye in a field.. fuk that, that merits a tzun tzu eyeroll of a NO. maybe in the old daZe... but.. the gov knows they have us outgunned.. no question. so eliminating well regulated.. we got guerillas. which can be a nuisance to big machines.. and have managed in certain circumstances to monkey wrench them to stall.

so.. now... we come to the nib. who would indeed be afraid of unregulated guerilla forces. well.. governors still have some free private security resources such as the nasty guard, sort of..at their beck/call .. at least the skeleton krews not shipp'd out by georgie boy...... but think individual local tyrannical elements (media included).... they don't have much cover... if they do it's expensive.... most probably merc in nature....... think of the roman regional rural rulers left to their own defenses cut off from their legions near hadrian's wall. conveniently representative of the larger tyranny to the local folk, and oh so accessible in their geography.... ya know.. the empire can't be everywhere....and ours is quite spread thin at the moment..more to the point.........merc's don't work for free. thus.. the wild card, their own little snooty, local roman skins.

as a bet. yokels seeing their brethren picked off will finally see the wolves nearing the fence they are confined in and finally ... lock/load. slim.. but a chance.....what better propaganda could there be... imminent danger......to realize that you/yours might be next.. quite possibly it would spur you to action.. lazy as 'murikunz are.. skin in the game is the only impetus to action, even if the odds suck.bro rudyard kipling reminded me of this last night .... he suggested to the "propaganda office" that the horrific casualty reports from the opening battles w/germany in WWI be allowed unaltered into the media. his advice was borne out. some.. including kipling.. gave their all.. in kipling's case.. his only son, jack.

even if it were a doomed feat... you if only you.. would know.. you went down fighting ... to the last... not as a slave on yer knees.. but as a free human. besides... what would you wanna bring to a knife fight? a rock or a gun >:)?

I completely agree with your last paragraph. And it seems to me that many of those who own guns (pry 'em from my cold, dead hands type) are indeed racist. They're the same type, like those who line up at the U.S. - Mexico border to make "citizens arrests" of Mexicans attempting to cross over (illegally). They actually hate those Mexicans but never complain or do anything about the rich (usu. white) Americans who employ /exploit the Mexican workers, nor the politicians who enable these exploitive practices, and especially never do they criticize the American politicians whose policies directly and enormously contribute to wealthy Mexico having so many impoverished people. They blame that phenomenon on Mexican gov't corruption. ! Right, like the Mexican gov't isn't approved by the U.S. of A. And if you don't get that U.S. of A gov't seal of approval, why then you're typically a communist, guerilla, or a terrorist.

Also regarding your last paragraph, remember never underestimate the stupidity of (some) people. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Sorry, I kinda' veered off topic with that. So shoot me already. ha,ha

btw, as for the rest of the essay, I'm just shrugging my shoulders as I don't really know what the answer to this guns vs. no guns debate is. I really don't care for guns at all. But, if I had my druthers, I'd ban governments, not guns. Smaller gov'ts are the way to go, imo. Down with the feds and the nwo.

The dhs is visiting here? You mean American Homeland Security? What a bunch of assholes. See they have nothing better to do, all that goddamned taxpayer money gone to spit. Or maybe they think that they'll find ole bin Laden on the internet? What wankers! haahaha---------------This from an anon poster made me laugh:

"Your government is free to do whatever they want to or with the people, and you don't have the means to resist them, and that's the whole point. I fear what happened there may happen here. Our government is out of control enough, we don't need to lose the only thing they fear. Gun control doesn't control crime, it controls who can get guns."

That is ludicrous on so many levels. Americans (even those with guns) can resist their gov'ts policies or laws? Ha,ahahaha. Go ahead, tell yer gov't that you're not paying taxes any more, and that if they come to your house to collect or audit you that you've got a gun with which to defend yourself. haha,ahaha We'll be hearing about your ass on CNN and Fux news.

Your gov't "fears" you with your guns? Stop it, you're slaying me with laughter! If you are not organized, and if you are they likely know about it and are keeping an eye or your org, otherwise they don't give a flying fuck about you and your weapons. They really don't. They, otoh, ARE highly organized and you should see theirs ;)

Perhaps where I'm coming from is that the guns are there. Tons of them. I take that as a given, a starting point. I could see arguments for gun regulation before, but now, with the rise of this new go-for-broke tyranny, those arguments need to be looked at anew.

The gun lobby's cutting the second amendment in half, which had utility before, no longer does. In this new world-of-what's-coming these weapons need to be viewed in a new light. And that light makes sense of the whole of the second amendment. And if the second amendment is thus embraced in its entirety and the guns put to use in those terms, then the previous crime/defence-of-home mindset has to be abandoned. Between getting shot at in Watts and a government building concentration camps (fingers crossed they ain't for you!), obsessing over Watts is a mistake.

Otherwise kikz, on the subject of massacres, the drugs are so fucking obvious! Even our own statistically mad Port Arthur massacre was pharma-fueled. Unsurprisingly the media disregards the drugs and dwells only on the guns. That assorted Western well-on-way-to-fascism governments are so very keen to disarm their citizens tells me that American guns just might be good for something after all.

Here in Oz, very few are armed. We have no option but to persue a Ghandi-like approach. And there's a lot to be said for it. But Americans do have the option. And they can choose Ghandi or Ho Chi Minh or both. Whatever they do, they need to consider what they want to achieve and how best to go about it. And sitting at home waiting to greet those in jackboots ain't it.

This was an email I sent to the Aussie Gun Control Lobby who is winging about heavy armaments in Aus. society.The reply -zilch.‘GreetingsWhat if anything are you doing to reduce the number of on duty police wearing side arms in Australia?Are you doing anything re taser issue to police in Australia?’Tony

Hmm... interesting, huh? But then again I'm unsurprised. Powers given to the police are a one-way trip. Once gotten, they're never relinquished.

Also I'm prepared to bet money that there are members of ASIO or the feds in both the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby. I expect both lobbies are dodgy. And with a bunch of dupes doing the legwork sure enough.

annE M, you had some great points, inre the "southern border bunnies" as some are apt to call them.

joe 'merikun just can't make the mental circuit to see the big picture. nor can they understand that the illegals are here and will continue to come here in vast numbers becuz.. thaz exactly what us/mex govs want.

another point you made inre taxes... yup yup. there are not too damn many degrees separating tax slavery from total chattel slavery.

it's payin 'protection' to the local bagman so the goombaz don' burn down your store in the night..

I used to run workshops and later art departments. And I've also spent a great deal of time in other people's workshops and art departments. And I've seen places like that go to hell because the heads would let bullies take over and dictate the daily discourse. It's not infrequent. But me, I got no time for it. I wouldn't put up with it in my shop and I made myself unpopular in other people's shops for not putting up with it there either, ha ha.

And here? I have no compunction disappearing comments. But it will be my rule to say what was disappeared and why. I'll admit I don't understand what Apollonian wants here. To dominate the discussion and have the world revolve around him I expect. His latest effort was 'concessionary' (if there's such a word). He didn't care to be called mad. He conceded his logic had holes but otherwise defended his point. He quoted some religious book at me and made an obscure point about Jews and Judaism. Sure enough my eyes glazed over. Again.

Mate, you've already established that you're only ever a hair-trigger away from being caps-lock key, spit-flecked variety of abusive and the wheedling tone now just doesn't do it for me. You can roll over if you like but I ain't going to rub your tummy. Life's too short, mate, for you and me both.

Wish I had the patience to read the whole comment thread. I am a proud, gun-owning Vermonter (don't call me American) who is willing to use my and my comrade's arsenals offensively or defensively. Check out my "well regulated militia" of two people at The Revolution Script.

Also I get a fair number of hits from dubious locations, like Guantanamo Bay, so Nobody, I know how you feel.

Good onya. I'll click your thing in a second. But, Guantanamo Bay? Go figure the logic there. Perhaps they let the terrorists tool around on the net in order to see what terrorist sites they visit, ha ha. And they led them straight to us! Oh no!

Link didn't work but I found you anyway. You ARE the business! Wild stuff.

Funny you should mention a militia of two. Since this piece here seems to be picking up in popularity, my thoughts had been returning to the idea and I'd been thinking 'militias of three', ha ha. Certainly no more than five. Anyway I've kind of regretted that I didn't think of it earlier and put it in the piece.